Musings…
In less than four days our little chat on NAS whiskies has drummed up 100 comments. Holy hell. Is it that people want to chat and engage somewhere other than the big four forums? Or is it more simple than that, and simply due to the need to work this NAS debate out of our systems. Dunno. Either way, there are a whole load of topics worthy of discussion, but not necessarily worthy of an oration.
Going forward, I’m gonna drop a quick paragraph or two in a post just like this one – under a category called ‘Musings’ – and share a thought or two (or perhaps pose a question) and just see where it goes. Nothing more than shits and giggles.
Lemme get a new review or two outta the way first, then we’ll jump in. Look forward to hearing what you all have to say.
– Curt
All Things Whisky 
Excuse my ignorance, but what are the top four? And how do you determine what makes them so? Quality or hits?
If I had to guess (let’s see if I’m right) it would be whisky fun, WWW, Ralfy and Connosr? If not, what am I missing out on?
Don’t discount the power of your site. Many others don’t make commenting easy and you don’t seem to censor anything. You have a vast archive of reviews.
I have as much fun reading about the topic as I do drinking Scotch. In fact, when drinking I’m limited as to how much I can experience because I don’t like the alcohol buzz. But I can read about as much as I want (even on call!).
Your site is one of the top sites I go to. I prefer it to Whisky fun, Ralfy is slowing down and has changed from more instructive in the beginning to over-opinionated (but still fun).
I won’t choose one favourite, but this site is as good a candidate as any.
Morning, David.
As always, I appreciate the kind words. Honestly. Ego inflation to start off the day puts a smile on my face. Hey…I’m as susceptible to flattery as the next guy.
I meant ‘Big Four’ only terms of forums, not blogs or vlogs. Was thinking WWW, Connosr, Whiskymag and Club Whisky. Seems to be where most gather for true dialogue and engagement.
C
It feels like I’m having a direct conversation with you given I’m following your replies almost in real time.
Thanks for naming…I will look up the 2 sites I’m not familiar with. Gotta have something to read when you’re taking a break…
One day we’ll gather the troops somewhere central and have a weekend whisky convention or something. Would be killer to meet everyone face to face.
Somewhere central…Sakachewan?
Sure. Whatever works. Would be a blast, no?
Count Barbara and me in if place and timing work. Would be great fun to meet.
I won’t hold Skeptic to his spelling, but I like his idea! Ever since seeing the Guess Who (no, really, guess who) in San Angelo, Texas, in 1972 I’ve wanted to visit Saskatoon.
If it’s ok we’ll drag along something you might not have tried.
I’m a true Canadian, but my iPad is not…sorry for the spelling.
Great idea, Curt. If the NAS discussion is any indication of the fun we could have I’m all for some more musings. The more controversial the topics the better. Let’s get ready to rumble!!
OK, who wants to tackle Physician assisted death?
Just kidding….
Oh come on now, David, the answer is too obvious!
If all GOOD currently NAS whiskies carried an age statement, and if everyone had an adequate supply to enjoy, PAD would be a non-issue…. It would change to WAL.. Whisky assisted life.
Let’s talk rating scales.
We picked up five new malts yesterday so had a friend over last night to our usual tasting notes session. Always a hoot. Anyway, I use a too-complicated scale that evolved over the years to a scale that ranges from a capital N to five capital Y’s; there are 11 points on the scale, with the possibility of pluses between the points. Barbara uses a 9-point scale (1 – 9) and uses every point on the scale. Our friend adapted Barbara’s scale, and last night’s tasting finally convinced me to do the same. I’ll depict a Bell curve, one on the left tail, 9 on the right, and I’ll use every point: most efficient, nothing gets wasted.
The bottom line is this: 100-point scales where raters using only 40 points on the scale (e.g., 60 through 100, although I can’t recall seeing a 100) make absolutely no sense to me (sorry Curt). If somebody says, “XYZ malt was the worst whisky I’ve ever tasted” and then assigns a 60 rating I’m baffled. Do they think there is the possibility of tasting at least 59 more whiskies that will be worse?
Unlike Forrest Gump, that’s not all I have to say about that, but there’s my thinking for opening that can of worms.
Wow. Eerie timing on that comment, Bob. I decided earlier today that that is one of the topics I want to cover in one of these future ‘Musings’. I won’t weigh in here, if you don’t mind. Give me some time to pull together a post on it.
Cheers!
Can’t wait, Curt.
I think two-bit’s point is very well made, and I’d argue that many reviewers are really only rating out of 15 most of the time (80-95), which, of course, affects any mathematical analysis of the scores in a big way. Oliver did touch on aspects of this before: http://www.dramming.com/2010/02/22/bible-lessons/
I recall reading Oliver’s post when it was fresh (it still is, really). I’m quite sure I can credit Oliver and my many statistics professors for my current thinking. It’s pure logic.